aaron.ballman added a comment.
> Have you run this over any large code bases to see whether the check triggers
> in practice?
I'm still curious about this, btw.
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/readability/RedundantDataCallCheck.cpp:45
+ anyOf(TypesMatcher, pointerType(pointee(TypesMatcher)))))),
+ callee(namedDecl(hasName("data"))))
+ .bind("call")))),
----------------
Should this check apply equally to `std::string::c_str()` as well as
`std::string::data()`?
================
Comment at: clang-tidy/readability/RedundantDataCallCheck.cpp:57
+ const auto *Member = Result.Nodes.getNodeAs<MemberExpr>("member");
+ auto DiagBuilder = diag(Member->getMemberLoc(), "redundant call to .data()");
+ if (Member->isArrow()) {
----------------
I think the word "redundant" isn't going to be immediately obvious to a user
who would write code like that. Perhaps `"accessing an element of the container
does not require a call to 'data()'; did you mean to use 'operator[]()'
instead?"`
================
Comment at: docs/clang-tidy/checks/readability-redundant-data-call.rst:7
+This check finds and suggests removing redundant ``.data()`` calls. Currently
+this covers calling ``.data()`` and immediately doing array subscript operation
+to obtain a single element, in which case simply calling ``operator[]``
suffice.
----------------
doing array subscript -> doing an array subscript
Repository:
rCTE Clang Tools Extra
https://reviews.llvm.org/D45702
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
